I don't get why all these Peter Parker's have to look like Sheldon from BBT or Scott Pilgrim. Why can't we have a DARK R rated Spider-Man Sin City style. Have Spider-Man be a murderer instead of this 'tie him up with web, and wait for the police to apprehend the suspect' nonsense. For the love of God, please stop this Mary 'help me, i'm falling from a building!!' Jane/Peter 'I love you Mary-Jane!!' Parker rom-com, I just couldn't care less!

It's because studios don't have the balls to greenlight a R rated sex/violence/sleaze Spider-Man. That's their precious kiddie, billion $ franchise. If Spider-Man is to be rebooted, I don't see why everything can't be rebooted and not just the cast.

It's because studios don't have the balls to greenlight a R rated sex/violence/sleaze Spider-Man. That's their precious kiddie, billion $ franchise. If Spider-Man is to be rebooted, I don't see why everything can't be rebooted and not just the cast.

Simply put it isn't in Spider-man nature nor character to kill criminals and do other 'R' rated things. That makes as much sense as making Blade a florist.

Blade is a bad ass who doesn't give a shit and kills. Spider-Man is a kids romantic comedy franchise (Fantastic4, Electra) that has been shoved down our throats. There is no reason whatsoever that Spider-Man can't be dark, apart from the studios not allowing it. It will make $80M instead of $800M.

Spider-man can be anything of course (1) but the point is his character isn't predisposed to violence and killing in the manner which you suggest. It would be completely out of tone with his depiction in the comics and it wouldn't work at all. Spider-man isn't a vengeful killer like Blade or the Punisher. He's a more nobler breed of hero. If you want to blame anything then blame the script-writing and direction not the actual character. Going dark doesn't necessarily translate to a worthwhile film. Would you say "Aliens vs Predator: Requiem" is a cinematic feast of goodness?

AvP:R isn't dark though. It's a teen slasher film, and a shit one at that. I don't see why comics should dictate how a film should be made. Didn't the original Batman comics have him fly and have a gun? I agree that dark doesn't mean good, but it certainly makes it more unique, original and adult in themes and content.

The problem with this new Spider-Man film is we all know how it's going to play out, we've seen this so many times before. I'm sure kids will love it, but with the impact of TDK I think this type of film is redundant for more mature audiences.

AvP:R isn't dark though. It's a teen slasher film, and a shit one at that. I don't see why comics should dictate how a film should be made. Didn't the original Batman comics have him fly and have a gun? I agree that dark doesn't mean good, but it certainly makes it more unique, original and adult in themes and content.

The problem with this new Spider-Man film is we all know how it's going to play out, we've seen this so many times before. I'm sure kids will love it, but with the impact of TDK I think this type of film is redundant for more mature audiences.

Then don't go to see it Vad3r.

TDK is actually a bad example for either Spider-Man or Superman because they're wildly different characters than Batman - he's essentially a mad man with focus like a laser beam and a lot of money to spend on his lifestyle so a hyper-real psychological slant works brilliantly for him on film. Similar approaches for Superman and Spider-Man though wouldn't fit like that though - they're larger than life characters whose stories are complete flights of fancy and the films are being made to entertain, not be serious. That doesn't mean they have to be totally for kids but going too far in the other direction could hurt the quality of the films too.

You're right that comics shouldn't dictate how the film should be because obviously they're different art forms but changing the core of the characters just for the sake of it seems pointless; some things do translate well from page to screen so the filmmakers should show the source material some respect and change only what wouldn't work on screen.

Perfectly well put Marwood. Another one whom I'd gladly meet for a drink in the pub!

Some people need to stop suggesting that a character take a dark route simply for the sake of it. Not every character loathes themselves or wallows in guilty, anger and all the rest of it. Spider-man is a cheery fellow, he doesn't sit atop rooftops, brooding away and scowling at the fiefdom below. I think if the studio were to take your approach they would simply be paying attention to another vocal crowd and thus be rather supine. The key thing which Marwood mentioned is that one has to translate the core elements of the character which work. Fine, not ever single detail will survive the adaptation to the screen. However, if one changes too much of what makes the character so well-admired and appealing then he/she/it ceases to be that character and becomes something else entirely.

Finally. I used the example of "Aliens vs Predator: Requiem" (1) to answer one of your points about making the fourth Spider-man film far more violent. My point being that graphic violence doesn't guarantee good quality.

1. "Requiem for a Dream" it certainly is not. A film which is quite dark.

Zombieland, Superbad and Easy A star Emma Stone has apparently bagged the role of Mary Jane... this is according to Aintitcool though, but I'd heard that Gwen Stacey was going to be the female lead...

Anyway, if this is true I'm even more interested in the reboot as I'm a huge fan of Stone and I think her and Garfield would be much better leads than Maguire and Dunst.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Zombieland, Superbad and Easy A star Emma Stone has apparently bagged the role of Mary Jane... this is according to Aintitcool though, but I'd heard that Gwen Stacey was going to be the female lead...

Anyway, if this is true I'm even more interested in the reboot as I'm a huge fan of Stone and I think her and Garfield would be much better leads than Maguire and Dunst.

Just read that too - although they say she's been offered it, not actually accepted so I don't think it's done deal. I also thought Gwen was going to be the lead girl but the rumour mill lately has been that both MJ and Gwen will be featuring so I expect MJ will appear as she did in the comics for a long time - part of Peter's small circle of friends, harbours feelings for him but while he's with Gwen she hangs back (dates Harry?) then eventually she and Peter get together some time after Gwen's death. I suspect if any of the rumours are true about the female leads then Gwen will be killed in one of the inevitable sequels to this reboot and MJ will step in as Peter's girlfriend in a later film. That might mean Stone like Garfield will be signed up for multiple films - of the numerous candidates I think she's the best name mentioned so if she takes it I'll be more interested to see where they're going. The AICN mentions that Garfield is playing a high school age Peter but I thought the current plan was for him to be college aged again as Garfield would struggle to convince as someone that much younger - unconfirmed either way but makes more sense to me.

Also Emyr thanks for the compliments, I don't totally disagree with Vad3r's desire to see a different direction taken with these new films (he's posted similar comments on the Superman thread so I get the impression he's talking about superhero films in general) but again don't think the angles suggested are really keeping in line with the core aspects of the characters. A new take on the tone to make Spider-Man's antics less campy or soap opera-y isn't a bad idea providing the essence of the characters isn't randomly changed just to fit around that, apparently the reboot is supposed to be more character focused than spectacle (hence a lower budget) so it'll be interesting to see what the production team and cast can make of it.

Stone and Garfield's take will be no different to Maguire and Dunst's. Why change what's not broken (commercially)? It will just be the same rom-com with web. If anything it is pandering even more to the teens/kids given they look 16 and the director at the helm.

Stone and Garfield's take will be no different to Maguire and Dunst's. Why change what's not broken (commercially)?

Maguire was really starting to look his age in 3 and I never liked Dunst as MJ. She always came across as a whiny bitch.

Still not sure about the decision to go back to high school but bring in the 26 year old Garfield though, because by the time of the sequel you're going to have to move them on to adulthood or else lose any credibility. It's a stretch having him as a high schooler as it is.

Stone and Garfield's take will be no different to Maguire and Dunst's. Why change what's not broken (commercially)?

Maguire was really starting to look his age in 3 and I never liked Dunst as MJ. She always came across as a whiny bitch.

Still not sure about the decision to go back to high school but bring in the 26 year old Garfield though, because by the time of the sequel you're going to have to move them on to adulthood or else lose any credibility. It's a stretch having him as a high schooler as it is.

When talking about Stone's casting Webb referred to Peter as a teenager so I guess they're still trying to make at least some of this film be set in high school. Not that Garfield looks like an old man but I think he'll struggle to convince as someone 8-10 years younger. Maybe like the first Raimi film the characters will graduate halfway through.

So Emma Stone's actually been cast as Gwen? I like Stone so good that she's been cast but I thought she might have fit MJ better.

It's a little odd that she's playing Gwen to be honest (a comment I saw elsewhere suggested it'd be like Bryan Singer telling us "Patrick Stewart has been cast in X-Men... as Magneto!" ), as she seems far more suited to MJ, but whatever, it's cool.

So Emma Stone's actually been cast as Gwen? I like Stone so good that she's been cast but I thought she might have fit MJ better.

It's a little odd that she's playing Gwen to be honest (a comment I saw elsewhere suggested it'd be like Bryan Singer telling us "Patrick Stewart has been cast in X-Men... as Magneto!" ), as she seems far more suited to MJ, but whatever, it's cool.

I suppose it depends on how Gwen and MJ are written and played, I thought Stone would have made a good MJ as traditionally she's been quite fiery and had a "one of the guys" attitude in college - something we've seen from Stone in Zombieland and Superbad. Not to say Stone can't do anything else obviously but that to me felt like a good fit.

I've been thinking that too, don't know why but he feels like a good fit for Electro.

Lizard is the popular choice but the rumour is that traditionally Sony have never liked him and also with a slashed budget on the reboot would the effects really be up to standard for a CG creature like that on top of potentially what Spider-Man in action requires? I suppose you could argue that any effects based villain (Electro included) will suck up the budget but I think that Lizard would be a major cost for the film.

My only concern here is that, well isnít Rhys Ifans a little bitÖ err, shit! And isnít Connerís supposed to be a brilliant academic? Not sure Iíll be buying Ifans in that role! This is just an odd piece of casting for meÖ and not in a good way. Hope to be proven wrong though.

My only concern here is that, well isnít Rhys Ifans a little bitÖ err, shit! And isnít Connerís supposed to be a brilliant academic? Not sure Iíll be buying Ifans in that role! This is just an odd piece of casting for meÖ and not in a good way. Hope to be proven wrong though.

I agree. Whilst i don't share your dislike of Ifans, i would have to concurr that he is all types of wrong for the role of Dr Kurt Conners a.k.a The Lizard.

Strange really because he would actually be a good fit for a plethora of other Spidey villains like Mysterio, Electro, Vulture and Green Goblin!

It's all gone Pete Tong!

_____________________________

I feel like i'm Han Solo, your Chewie and she's Ben Kenobi - and we're in that FUCKED UP bar!!

One casting hope I have is that they keep on J.K Simmons as J.Jonah Jameson. Much like in the way the Bond films kept Judi Dench around as M after the Brosnan era was over. They could also do the same for Rosemary Harris as Aunt May.

_____________________________

There is no Swamp Ape. It was invented for people who can't find the actual world fascinating. Y'know?

One casting hope I have is that they keep on J.K Simmons as J.Jonah Jameson. Much like in the way the Bond films kept Judi Dench around as M after the Brosnan era was over. They could also do the same for Rosemary Harris as Aunt May.

Maybe but being a reboot apparently I don't suppose they will.

To be honest I was never that big a fan of Aunt May in the Raimi films, Harris was fine and played as needed but her character is one thing I wish Raimi and co had updated for the films. The Ultimate comics May is considerably younger than traditional May(say a decade or so older than Peter's parents) but still an older relative of his, she's sharp and a contemporary woman so personally I'd like to see that sort of take on her in the new films - someone in the mid 50s kind of age range would be about right.

What a terrible choice to play The Lizard, no doubt he'll be hamming it up to high heavens. Losing interest in this film mopre and more with each piece of news.

Many said the same thing about the casting of Heath Ledger for the role of the Joker in TDK. I'm not predicting he'll deliver the same kind of tour-de-force performance but he may at least pleasantly surprise his doubters.